‘Recent research shows a sugar tax could save more than 1,600 lives a year and raise $400 million for obesity prevention initiatives.’
Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

We knew there was a problem with sugary drinks. We knew it caused disease but we ducked the difficult decisions.

These are the words of the conservative British chancellor, George Osborne – the ones he does not want to leave as an epitaph to his children’s generation. He was speaking in support of the introduction of a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks.

And these are the words which should disturb the complacency of Australia’s politicians and policy makers. Why are we comfortable continuing to ignore the evidence that high sugar soft drinks are a potent cause of obesity and the clear evidence that a tax would reduce disease and premature death?

Recent research shows a sugar tax could save more than 1,600 lives a year and raise $400m for obesity prevention initiatives. This “sugar hit” is but one example of where we could make simple, inexpensive and even cost saving changes to benefit our children in areas like unhealthy food promotion and physical inactivity.

Sugar tax: financially regressive but progressive for health?

Read more

Who among us is not disturbed by the thought that on current chronic disease trends, the average life span of our children may be shorter than our own because of the curse of our modern diet and sedentary lifestyle?

For a country which has led the world on population-wide public health measures to introduce seat belts, combat drink driving and reduce smoking, Australia has faltered when it comes to taking effective measures to counter unhealthy diet.

Opinion polling in recent years has shown that a clear majority of Australian voters do want governments to do more to support habits for a healthy life. This includes a majority supporting a sugar tax and restrictions on the promotion of unhealthy food and drink particularly to young people.

The Prevention 1stcampaign has been initiated to convince our political leaders of the need for effective action on our greatest health challenge: chronic disease.

While federal and state governments argue over who is to pay for our over-stretched hospital and community health system, the tide of avoidable chronic disease continues to rise. Increasing chronic disease associated with lifestyle choices is the very thing pushing our hospitals to the limits.

More than eight in 10 Australians die prematurely, that is before the age of 75, because of conditions like cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes and cancer – all diseases triggered by lifestyle and diet and all to a significant extent avoidable.

Yet despite Australia’s record of success, we now languish near the bottom of the pile among developed countries when it comes to spending on preventive health measures. New Zealand, for instance, spends about four times more of its health budget on preventive health than Australia does.

The food and beverage industries resist measures that impose healthier requirements on them while others simply rely on “nanny state” rhetoric.

If the policy of state and federal governments is to avoid measures to protect industries from being exposed to reasonable health requirements for ordinary people, is this not an alternative version of the so-called nanny state sheltering unhealthy enterprises?

We bemoan the harm alcohol does to so many lives not only in terms of health costs but the social costs too. We all know only too well the extent of the social impacts from the recent spotlight placed on alcohol-fuelled domestic and street violence. Yet we accept the ubiquitous promotion of alcohol at every opportunity by our sporting heroes, at our sports grounds and on television. Despite the lifelong curse of foetal alcohol syndrome, the alcohol industry has fended off years of calls for mandatory warning labels.

We like to believe we are part of an educated society who expect to be governed by rational government policies. We know that reasonable, evidence-based initiatives do stimulate healthier responses.

Coca-Cola and other soft drinks firms hit back at sugar tax plan

Read more

A recent example has been the health food star labelling system. After many years of advocacy in the face of industry and government resistance for a simple and effective way of showing shoppers which products were healthier (or unhealthier), the star labels were introduced.

So we need to accept aspirations to healthier living, such as committing to the World Health Organisation’s 2025 non-communicable disease reduction targets, investing much more vigorously in a 10-year National Preventive Health Strategy and publicly report on progress against these targets.

Australia needs to respond now to ensure our children live longer, healthier lives. At the end of the day, it is a healthy population that will ensure we remain a productive and prosperous nation.